SACRAMENTO — California air regulators today approved the nation’s toughest rules to reduce harmful emissions from ocean-going ships using the state’s ports.
The regulations require domestic and foreign cargo ships, tankers and cruise vessels sailing in and out of California ports to use cleaner fuel to power their engines and boilers.
The California fuel mandate comes amid similar international efforts, but air regulators say the 27 million Californians who breathe polluted air from the state’s ports can’t wait for those rules, which are being drafted to take effect in 2015.
“The health of our residents is too important to wait for some other international organization to take action,” said Jerry Hill, a member of the California Air Resources Board. “The lives saved by the action we took today are significant.”
International shipping companies oppose the rules, adopted unanimously by the air board. They argue California has no jurisdiction to regulate their operations outside the state’s coastal zone.
The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association said California at best can regulate only ships within state waters that extend three nautical miles from the coast under a federal law known as the Submerged Lands Act. The rule adopted today would cover ships within 24 nautical miles of the coast.
“International ships running in international waters under international treaties should be handled under international laws,” said T.L. Garrett, vice president of the association, which represents about 60 ocean carrier lines and cargo terminals. “We know it’s the right thing to do. The question is, ‘Who should be telling us to do it?”’
Shippers last year won in federal court when they blocked a 2006 California regulation requiring large ships to use cleaner fuel in their auxiliary engines. A federal judge ruled the state did not have the authority to set shipping emission standards without the approval of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The latest California regulation defines the pollution standards as a fuel requirement, a strategy state regulators say does not require them to get federal permission.
It would ban ships from using so-called bunker fuel, a dirty, heavy crude oil that has the consistency of asphalt and must be heated onboard the ships to power the engines.
Beginning July 1, 2009, ocean-going vessels will have to switch to a more expensive but cleaner-burning marine fuel to power their main engines and the auxiliary boilers that heat water on the ship when they sail within 24 nautical miles of California’s coast.
The requirement would take effect later this year for auxiliary engines, which power ship lighting, navigation equipment and cargo refrigeration.
The rules apply to ships headed into and out of ports in the San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Diego, as well as inland ports for ocean-going vessels in Sacramento and Stockton.
Military, government and research vessels would be exempt. Ships that would need modifications so they can use cleaner fuels would be exempt until their equipment renovations were completed.
The Navy raised concerns that ship captains might abandon a long-established shipping route that hugs the coast in Southern California and instead travel straight to the open ocean. That would shorten their route and the time they would be forced to use the more expensive fuel, but could take the ships through the Navy’s missile testing range.
“If a ship comes through our range, we have to shut it down. We can’t do missile tests,” said Randal Friedman, California government affairs officer for the Navy in the southwest region.
Air board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said the state would try to address the Navy’s concerns.
In 2006, ships made nearly 11,000 port calls in California, a number that is expected to rise with the increase in international trade. Without new regulations, vessel emissions are projected to more than double by 2020, according to state air regulators.
The nitrogen oxide, diesel particulate matter and sulfur oxide emissions from some large ships headed to California ports are among the largest contributors to a toxic stew permeating port communities, according to the air board. The emissions are linked to asthma, as well as respiratory and cardiac problems.
Using cleaner fuels close to California’s coast is estimated to prevent 3,600 premature deaths between 2009 and 2015, and reduce the cancer risk associated with ship emissions by more than 80 percent.
Cargo companies question whether their container ships will be able to buy the more expensive fuel in world ports before they make the trip to California.
While some cleaner fuels are available, the regulation eventually demands a fuel with an even lower sulfur content than is now available.
“If the refiners fail to provide the fuel, we’re the ones who will be held in violation and have to pay the fees,” Garrett said.
Ship operators also worry the engines on some vessels aren’t designed to run on cleaner burning fuel and say it’s not clear whether switching between two fuels to operate a ship would deteriorate engine equipment. The Air Resources Board intends to study both issues.
A single vessel making one visit a year to a California port would pay about $30,000 more for fuel, less than 1 percent of the cost of a typical trans-Pacific voyage. That cost would increase to several million dollars for a large fleet that makes frequent visits to California.
For passenger cruise ships, increased fuel costs for a typical Los Angeles to Mexico tour would add about $15 per passenger, or a 3 to 4 percent fare increase.
Shippers would be fined $44,500 for a first offense, with the fee escalating to $227,500 for repeat offenses.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
